From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!uunet!mcsun!uknet!edcastle!aiai!jeff Mon Dec  9 10:48:31 EST 1991
Article 1912 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!uunet!mcsun!uknet!edcastle!aiai!jeff
>From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Searle and the Chinese Room
Message-ID: <5813@skye.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 6 Dec 91 18:47:07 GMT
References: <gdCb=YW00UhWQ2lpNp@andrew.cmu.edu> <YAMAUCHI.91Dec5040116@heron.cs.rochester.edu> <1991Dec5.191043.10565@psych.toronto.edu> <1991Dec5.210724.12480@cs.yale.edu>
Reply-To: jeff@aiai.UUCP (Jeff Dalton)
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
Lines: 18

In article <1991Dec5.210724.12480@cs.yale.edu> mcdermott-drew@CS.YALE.EDU (Drew McDermott) writes:
>
>   In article <1991Dec5.191043.10565@psych.toronto.edu> michael@psych.toronto.edu (Michael Gemar) writes:
>   >While all of the discussion here around the Chinese Room example has been
>   >at times inventive, it seems to me that the anti-Searle forces for the
>   >most part miss the distinction that can be drawn between Searle's
>   >*logical argument*, namely, that syntax is not sufficient for semantics, and
>   >his *demonstration*, or *thought experiment*, namely, the Chinese Room.
>
>Searle has two arguments, the original Chinese Room argument, and the
>Scientific American argument, with "Axioms" and "Conclusions."  I
>think he finally realized just how silly the first one was, and came
>up with the second to compensate.  

I believe the "syntax is insufficient for semantics" argument 
predates the Sci Am article.  At least I was familiar with it
long before I heard of anything by Searle in Sci Am.  It's
certainly in his 1984 Reith Lectures.


